get_developer_changes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states 'Metadata only', indicating no full content is returned, and implies read-only access. However, it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the developer has no changes. Important behavioral traits are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and a critical usage hint. It is front-loaded with the key action ('List developer's recent changes') and avoids any fluff. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too brief. It does not explain the return format, how filtering works, or the significance of the many parameters. While the hint about count_only is helpful, the description leaves the agent guessing about how to properly invoke the tool and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 89%, so parameters are mostly described in the schema. The description adds the hint 'use count_only first', which gives operational context to the count_only parameter. Beyond that, it does not elaborate on parameter nuances or typical values, so the added value is marginal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists developer changes across portal tables and returns metadata. It is specific about the resource ('developer changes') and the scope ('portal tables'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools, such as 'get_portal_component_code' or 'search_portal_regex_matches', which may overlap in purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a usage hint: 'use count_only first', which guides efficient use. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or situations where other tools might be more appropriate. The sibling list is large but no exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.